W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2001

Re: proposed resolution to issue #30

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@idoox.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 20:02:20 +0200 (CEST)
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0110242001460.28235-100000@mail.idoox.com>
Uh, I apologize I forgot to add [1] which is
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0270.html

                            Jacek Kopecky

                            Idoox
                            http://www.idoox.com/



On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Jacek Kopecky wrote:

 >  Chris,
 >  it doesn't preclude it, as well as the wording of Namespace spec
 > doesn't preclude putting the schemas at the namespace URIs. Many
 > do it this way but generally, this is not what the namespace URIs
 > were designed for. Thus the Namespace spec doesn't make any
 > guarantees about dereferencability of the namespace URIs, and I
 > think we shouldn't make any such guarantees for actor URIs either
 > (at least in the core SOAP, extensions can do anything anyway). 8-)
 >  In my post [1] I didn't mean to forbid dereferencing of any of
 > the URIs, I was just reacting to Noah's call for specifying our
 > guarantees about dereferencability of the URIs.
 >  Best regards,
 >                             Jacek Kopecky
 >
 >                             Idoox
 >                             http://www.idoox.com/
 >
 >
 >
 > On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Christopher Ferris wrote:
 >
 >  > Jacek,
 >  >
 >  > I agree that next and none wouldn't be dereferencable,
 >  > but that doesn't preclude use of relative URI actor
 >  > values that are relative to the base URI...
 >  >
 >  > Cheers,
 >  >
 >  > Chris
 >
 >
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 14:02:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT